And since the United Nations has a long track record of supporting global taxation (with the money going to the U.N., of course), I’m even less surprised when that crowd produces another idea for fleecing people in the productive sector of the economy.

The United Nations on Thursday called for a tax on billionaires to help raise more than $400 billion a year for poor countries. An annual lump sum payment by the super-rich is one of a host of measures including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, currency exchanges or financial transactions proposed in a UN report that accuses wealthy nations of breaking promises to step up aid for the less fortunate.

Yet the United Nations reflexively wants to line the pockets of the political elite in poor nations. And we’re not talking about pocket change.

The report estimates that the number of people around the globe worth at least $1 billion rose to 1,226 in 2012. There are an estimated 425 billionaires in the United States, 315 in the Asia-Pacific region, 310 in Europe, 90 in other North and South American countries and 86 in Africa and the Middle East. Together they own an estimated $4.6 trillion so a one percent tax on their wealth would raise more than $46 billion, according to the report. “Would this hurt them?” it questioned.

— a tax of $25 per tonne on carbon dioxide emissions would raise about $250 billion. It could be collected by national governments, but allocated to international cooperation.

— a tax of 0.005 percent on all currency transactions in the dollar, yen, euro and pound sterling could raise $40 billion a year.

— taking a portion of a proposed European Union tax on financial transactions for international cooperation. The tax is expected to raise more than $70 billion a year.

…Without commenting on any of the individual taxes proposed, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that if the new “innovative financing” is to become viable, “strong international agreement is needed.”

Though that may simply be because Obama wants to seize the money for his own class-warfare purposes and doesn’t want to compete with other taxing authorities. Sort of the way hyenas and vultures sometime fight over a carcass. Or how inner-city gangs sometimes fight over turf.

Actually, I apologize for those analogies. I hope the carrion feeders and gang-bangers of the world will forgive me for equating them with politicians.

“That’s an unfair slur”

Hyenas and vultures both have valuable roles in the ecosystem. And gangs sometimes engage in non-coercive activities such as selling drugs to yuppies.

I love the “Come on, it’s only 1%” argument. It always starts small. But only a moron would think it would end there. Eventually billionaires would be demonized because they won’t pony up 10, 20, and later 30+% of their wealth to salve the guilt and/or egos of UN bureaucrats.

No taxation without representation. I don’t recall being allowed to vote on who I wanted to lead the UN. Nor does it seem to have anything like a legislature in which I am represented. Who are these UN clowns, and what right do they have to demand money from anyone?

I don’t recognize the UN’s authority on anything, since it appears to be a group of unelected bureaucrats who are accountable to no one.

1. An autonomous currency issuer like the US, GB, Japan…dont tax to fund anything, yes its true, since they just fund all their needs out of thin air.
This process (government spending out of thin
air) does not even cause inflation in the true sense.

Cause what happens when the government spends?
It always funds a value creation process, means the money becomes value through this process.
Its the same like you working for someone else, and you would issue a promissory note for your work, that entitels the owner to demand work or goods from someone else…Thats money, and thats the process how it becomes value.

So the government does the same, issues those promissory notes (= central bank money) into the economy, by spending on infrastructure, education..on things that should benefit the public.
The people who work for the public, get those promissory notes (= central bank money) funded on their accounts benefiting them with a claim on labor/ goods against the public they work for.
As long the spending is beneficial to the public, there wont be any inflation.

b) Interest payment on government bonds. (they also get payed without a value creation process involved)
Privat banks cant create inflation, they are capital constrained and only produce claims/ liabilities on the money the government spends (= central bank money).
——————————————————————————————

2. so what is the true purpose of taxation?

a) For an autonomous currency issuer It is to control the money supply, to control inflation.
It doesnt fund anything like we were told.

b) For currency users like the EUR-Group (that have lost their status as an autonomous currency issuer) in fact it means funding.
But not the government, it funds the banks that stole the sovereignty from the state to fund its needs, and put him in the private banks dependence.
Thus the taxpayers of the EUR-Group dont fund government spending, no they fund the private banks, that hold the government bonds (debts).

As i explained an autonomous currency issuer does not spend debt constrained since it has the monopoly on its currency.
That is why the inteterest rates on governemnt bonds in the US, GB, Japan are low but in the EUR-Group become higher and higher every day. Means government bonds of autonomous currency issuer dont represent any debts (even if we were told so, but the mechanics behind the money-system reveal that they dont spend debt contsrained).

Whereas in the EUR-group they do represent debts. Even though it is a paradoxon because, only through government spending new money enters the economy.

See here:
government spending = moneysuply of the private sector:

That chart aproves the deflational situation in europe, cause since the EUR was founded 2000, there was no new money issued into the system through the government, cause the EUR member states now were true debt constrained in its spending. But economic growth need the growth of money supply…its not working the other way round.

You see what austerity caused in the USA in the Clinton era (1990th), from the picture above: when the government saves, the private sector gets robbed its savings. The liquidity crunch in the economy directly lead into the stock crash in the early 2000, and now the world wide austeirty programs since 2008 lead into a world wide expropriation of the private households.

The state has to make deficits to spend to guarantee economic growth. The state never must save in order to keep its people wealthy.

Conclusion:
So question to you as a lawyer, do we have to pay taxes at all if they dont fund the government but the private banks? Is the austerity program legal?

for an easier explanation check out the vids:

Why the government cant run out of money:

the inflation issue (ab 3:20):

the purpose of taxation:

the purpose of bondmarkets (they are needless since we are off the goldstandard):